scholarly journals Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

2020 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2097787
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Partial Credit ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality ( d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores ( d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret ( d = −0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

scholarly journals Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 673-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
Yuchiao Chang ◽  
Karen Sepucha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Herniated Disc ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Objective. If shared decision making (SDM) is to be part of quality assessment, it is necessary to have good measures of SDM. The purpose of this study is to compare the psychometric performance of 3 short patient-reported measures of SDM. Methods. Patients who met with a specialist to discuss possible surgery for hip or knee osteoarthritis (hips/knees), lumbar herniated disc, or lumbar spinal stenosis (backs) were surveyed shortly after the visit and again 6 months later. Some of the patients saw a patient decision aid (PDA) prior to the meeting. The 3 SDM measures were the SDM Process_4 (SDMP) survey, CollaboRATE, and SURE scale. The follow-up survey included measures of decision regret, satisfaction, and decision quality. Results. Patients in the sample ( N = 649) had a mean age of 63.3 years, 51% were female, 60% were college educated, and there were more hip/knee patients than back patients (69% v. 31%). Forty-nine percent had surgery. For hips/knees, the SDMP and SURE scores were significantly associated with viewing all of the PDA compared with those who did not ( P < 0.001), but not for CollaboRATE ( P = 0.35). For backs, none of the scores were significantly associated with viewing all the PDA. All 3 scores were significantly associated with less regret and higher satisfaction ( P < 0.001) for hips/knees. For backs, only SURE and CollaboRATE were significantly associated with less regret, and only SDMP was significantly associated with higher satisfaction. For hips/knees and backs, the SDMP and SURE scales were significantly associated with an informed patient-centered decision ( P < 0.001), but this relationship was not significant for CollaboRATE (hips/knees: P = 0.24; backs: P = 0.25). Discussion. Each measure has some evidence of validity. SURE and SDMP better discriminate the use of PDAs and have higher decision quality.

scholarly journals A Novel Tool to Improve Shared Decision Making and Adherence in Multiple Sclerosis: Development and Preliminary Testing

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831987913
Author(s):  
Nananda Col ◽  
Enrique Alvarez ◽  
Vicky Springmann ◽  
Carolina Ionete ◽  
Idanis Berrios Morales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Beta Testing

Background. Most people with multiple sclerosis (MS) want to be involved in medical decision making about disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), but new approaches are needed to overcome barriers to participation. Objectives. We sought to develop a shared decision-making (SDM) tool for MS DMTs, evaluate patient and provider responses to the tool, and address challenges encountered during development to guide a future trial. Methods. We created a patient-centered design process informed by image theory to develop the MS-SUPPORT SDM tool. Development included semistructured interviews and alpha and beta testing with MS patients and providers. Beta testing assessed dissemination and clinical integration strategies, decision-making processes, communication, and adherence. Patients evaluated the tool before and after a clinic visit. Results. MS-SUPPORT combines self-assessment with tailored feedback to help patients identify their treatment goals and preferences, correct misperceptions, frame decisions, and promote adherence. MS-SUPPORT generates a personal summary of their responses that patients can share with their provider to facilitate communication. Alpha testing (14 patients) identified areas needing improvement, resulting in reorganization and shortening of the tool. MS-SUPPORT was highly rated in beta testing (15 patients, 4 providers) on patient-provider communication, patient preparation, adherence, and other endpoints. Dissemination through both patient and provider networks appeared feasible. All patient testers wanted to share the summary report with their provider, but only 60% did. Limitations. Small sample size, no comparison group. Conclusions. The development process resulted in a patient-centered SDM tool for MS that may facilitate patient involvement in decision making, help providers understand their patients’ preferences, and improve adherence, though further testing is needed. Beta testing in real-world conditions was critical to prepare the tool for future testing and inform the design of future studies.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes in RA care improve patient communication, decision-making, satisfaction and confidence: qualitative results

Rheumatology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (7) ◽  
pp. 1662-1670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan J Bartlett ◽  
Elaine De Leon ◽  
Ana-Maria Orbai ◽  
Uzma J Haque ◽  
Rebecca L Manno ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Clinic Staff ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective To evaluate the impact of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinics, from the perspective of patients with RA, clinicians and other staff. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design at an academic arthritis clinic. RA patients completed selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures on tablets in the waiting room. Results were immediately available to discuss during the visit. Post-visit surveys with patients and physicians evaluated topics discussed and their impact on decision making; patients rated confidence in treatment. Focus groups or interviews with patients, treating rheumatologists and clinic staff were conducted to understand perspectives and experiences. Results Some 196 patients and 20 rheumatologists completed post-visit surveys at 816 and 806 visits, respectively. Focus groups were conducted with 24 patients, 10 rheumatologists and 4 research/clinic staff. PROs influenced medical decision-making and RA treatment changes (38 and 18% of visits, respectively). Patients reported very high satisfaction and treatment confidence. Impact on clinical workflow was minimal after a period of initial adjustment. PROs were valued by patients and physicians, and provided new insight into how patients felt and functioned over time. Reviewing results together improved communication, and facilitated patient-centred care, shared decision making, and the identification of new symptoms and contributing psychosocial/behavioural factors. Conclusion PRO use at RA visits was feasible, increased understanding of how disease affects how patients feel and function, facilitated shared decision-making, and was associated with high patient satisfaction and treatment confidence.

Prudence in Shared Decision-Making: The Missing Link between the “Technically Correct” and the “Morally Good” in Medical Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Muleli Kioko ◽  
Pablo Requena Meana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Patient Relationship ◽  
Good Healing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Physician Patient

Abstract Shared Decision-Making is a widely accepted model of the physician–patient relationship providing an ethical environment in which physician beneficence and patient autonomy are respected. It acknowledges the moral responsibility of physician and patient by promoting a deliberative collaboration in which their individual expertise—complementary in nature, equal in importance—is emphasized, and personal values and preferences respected. Its goal coincides with Pellegrino and Thomasma’s proximate end of medicine, that is, a technically correct and morally good healing decision for and with a particular patient. We argue that by perfecting the intellectual ability to apprehend the complexity of clinical situations, and through a perfection of the application of the first principles of practical reason, prudence is able to point toward the right and good shared medical decision. A prudent shared medical decision is therefore always in keeping with the kind of person the physician and the patient have chosen to be.

scholarly journals Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine D. Lippa ◽  
Markus A. Feufel ◽  
F. Eric Robinson ◽  
Valerie L. Shalin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Distributed Cognition ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Decision Space

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

scholarly journals Patient and physician perspectives guiding intra-articular treatment choice in knee osteoarthritis: stakeholders are aligned on treatment priorities but have different assessments of treatment effect

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000578
Author(s):  
Vandana Menon ◽  
Caroline Huber ◽  
Alexandria Portelli ◽  
Marissa Baker-Wagner ◽  
Scott Kelley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Needs ◽  
Knee Oa ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Factors

ObjectivesKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of health-related disability. In the absence of curative non-operative therapies, treatment goals are limited to symptom relief. Data are limited on how patients and physicians prioritise available treatment options. We assessed patients’ preferences for and physicians’ attitudes towards intra-articular treatments including corticosteroids (IACS), an extended-release corticosteroid (TA-ER) and hyaluronic acids (IAHA).MethodsWe conducted a prospective, IRB-exempt, double-blind survey of patients with and providers who treat knee OA. Respondents were required to have received or prescribed TA-ER in a non-trial setting. We evaluated patients’ OA history, impact of knee OA and treatment preferences, and physicians’ decision-making and prescribing experiences.ResultsOf the 97 patient participants, mean age was 56 years, 70.0% were women, 75.0% had bilateral knee OA and 46.4% were diagnosed over 5 years ago. Of the 50 physician participants, 34.0% were rheumatologists, 42.0% were orthopaedic surgeons and 60.0%, on average, treat 50+ patients with knee OA per month. Treatment selection factors considered ‘very important’ to patients and physicians included disease severity (88.7%, 82.0%), impact on quality of life (88.7%, 72.0%), disease extent (84.5%, 54.0%) and activity level (80.4%, 64.0%). A majority (93.8%) of patients indicated moderate to severe difficulty with their knees. Fewer patients (76.3%) reported shared decision making compared with physicians (92.0%). Half (50.5%) of the patients reported that they experienced months of pain relief with TA-ER, 27.7% with IACS and 18.8% with IAHA. Physician assessments were consistent but estimated a greater duration of treatment effects than that reported by patients across all therapies.ConclusionWhile knee OA has a tremendous impact on patients, there are significant unmet treatment needs. The increasing use of patient-reported outcomes will allow patients and physicians to track pain and functional status over time and across therapies, improving shared decision-making.

Co-Design of an Electronic Dashboard to Support Coproduction of Care in Pediatric Rheumatic Disease (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alysha Taxter ◽  
Lisa Johnson ◽  
Doreen Tabussi ◽  
Yukiko Kimura ◽  
Brittany Donaldson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Vertical Orientation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Data Elements ◽  
The Right

BACKGROUND Coproduction of care involves patients and families partnering with their clinicians and care teams, with the premise that each brings their own perspective, knowledge, and expertise, as well as their own values, goals, and preferences to the partnership. Dashboards can display meaningful patient and clinical data to assess how a patient is doing and inform shared decision making. Increasing communication between patients and care teams is particularly important for children with chronic conditions, such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), which is the most common, chronic rheumatic condition of childhood, and is associated with increased pain, decreased function, and decreased quality of life. OBJECTIVE We aimed to design a dashboard prototype for use in coproducing care for JIA patients. We evaluated the context use and needs of end users, obtained consensus on the necessary dashboard data elements, and constructed display prototypes to inform meaningful discussions for coproduction. METHODS A human-centered design approach involving parents, patients, clinicians, and care team members was used to develop a dashboard to support coproduction of care in four diverse ambulatory pediatric rheumatology clinics across the United States. We engaged a multidisciplinary team (n=18) of patients/parents, clinicians, nurses, and staff during an in-person kick-off meeting, followed by bi-weekly meetings. We also leveraged advisory panels. Teams mapped workflows and patient journeys, created personas, and developed dashboard sketches. Final necessary dashboard components were determined using Delphi consensus voting. Low-tech dashboard testing was completed during clinic visits, and visual display prototypes were iterated using PDSA methodology. Patients and providers were surveyed about their experiences. RESULTS Teams achieved consensus on what data matters most at point-of-care to support JIA patients, families, and clinicians partnering together to make the best possible decisions for better health. Notable themes included: the right data, in the right place, at the right time; data in once for multiple purposes; patient and family self-management components; and opportunity for education and increased transparency. A final set of 11 dashboard data elements were identified which include patient-reported outcomes, clinical data, and medications. Important design considerations include incorporation of real-time data, clearly labeled graphs, and vertical orientation to facilitate review and discussion. Prototype paper testing with 36 patients/families yielded positive feedback about the dashboard’s usefulness during clinic discussions, helped to talk about what mattered most, and informed healthcare decision making. CONCLUSIONS Our study developed a dashboard prototype that displays patient-reported and clinical data over time, along with medications, that can be used during a clinic visit to support meaningful conversations and shared decision making between JIA patients/families and their clinicians and care teams. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

scholarly journals Using Standardized Videos to Examine the Validity of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: Results of a Randomized Online Experiment

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110292
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Brittney Mancini ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Carol Cosenza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
High Cholesterol ◽  
Hypothetical Scenario ◽  
Quality Video ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a brief, patient-reported measure of SDM with demonstrated validity in surgical decision making studies. Herein we examine the validity of the scores in assessing SDM for cancer screening and medication decisions through standardized videos of good-quality and poor-quality SDM consultations. Method An online sample was randomized to a clinical decision—colon cancer screening or high cholesterol—and a viewing order—good-quality video first or poor-quality video first. Participants watched both videos, completing a survey after each video. Surveys included the SDM Process scale and the 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9); higher scores indicated greater SDM. Multilevel linear regressions identified if video, order, or their interaction predicted SDM Process scores. To identify how the SDM Process score classified videos, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The correlation between SDM Process score and SDM-Q-9 assessed construct validity. Heterogeneity analyses were conducted. Results In the sample of 388 participants (68% white, 70% female, average age 45 years) good-quality videos received higher SDM Process scores than poor-quality videos ( Ps < 0.001), and those who viewed the good-quality high cholesterol video first tended to rate the videos higher. SDM Process scores were related to SDM-Q-9 scores ( rs > 0.58; Ps < 0.001). AUC was poor (0.69) for the high cholesterol model and fair (0.79) for the colorectal cancer model. Heterogeneity analyses suggested individual differences were predictive of SDM Process scores. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed good evidence of validity in a hypothetical scenario but were lacking in ability to classify good-quality or poor-quality videos accurately. Considerable heterogeneity of scoring existed, suggesting that individual differences played a role in evaluating good- or poor-quality SDM conversations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document